Cases: Lodestar

Lodestar, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Judge’s Award Of $1,000 In Fees/Costs Reversed Where Requested Amount Was $164,768

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Appellate Court Needed More Of A Justification For Such A Large “Haircut.”             For readers who have followed us for some time, you would know that district judges in the Ninth Circuit have to explain “haircuts” from attorney’s fees requests which exceed 10% with some specificity.  (See, e.g., Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d […]

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Multiplier: Although Fraudulent Concealment Compensatory And Punitive Damages Were Reversed, $510,637.87 Fee/Costs Award Under Song-Beverly Act Case Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Failure To Apportion/Double Counting Lodestar And Enhancement Arguments Not Supported By The Record.             In many cases, a fees-seeking litigant needs to apportion between fee entitlement and non-fee entitlement claims, unless the thrust of the case involved a fee entitlement case so that it was inextricably intertwined with a non-fee case.  If so, even a

Allocation, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Prevailing Plaintiff Correctly Awarded $182,000 Under Contractual Fees Clause After Winning $455,000 In Damages After A Lengthy Court Trial

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fees Award Should Not Get Offset Against Damages, And Trial Judge Awarded Contingency Arrangement Percentage As Fees—Dispensing With The Need For Review Of Detailed Bills.             Prevailing plaintiff in Pham v. Nguyen, Case No. H044958 (6th Dist. Apr. 15, 2020) (unpublished), on the heels of winning $455,000 in damages, moved for contractual attorney’s fees.  The

Lodestar, Private Attorney General: Third District Affirms Approximate 93% Reduction To Petitioner’s Requested Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 Fee Award

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Petitioner’s Limited Success – Winning Only 1 Of Its 13 Arguments – Was Crucial Factor In Substantial Reduction From Requested $1,440,713 In Fees To $94,698.33 Even After 1.5 Multiplier Was Applied.             The Sacramento-San Juaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 was enacted to address the problems and challenges facing the Delta – the most valuable

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717, Settlement: Reasonable Discretion Exercised In Awarding Defendant Only 20% Of Requested $177,712 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

The Legal Principles Of Civil Code Section 1717 and Santisas Governed.             Both parties appealed the fee results in Rusnak/South Bay v. Glukel Group, Case No. B286513 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2019) involving a dispute between landlord and tenant – with tenant plaintiff advancing contract and tort claims against landlord.         

Civil Rights, Lodestar, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: 9th Circuit Remands Post-Settlement Fee Award In Civil Rights Case For Determination of Reasonable Hourly Rate and Settlement Agreement Date To Determine Fees For Work on Unfiled Motions

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

There Was Humor Here—Ninth Circuit Agreed Attorney Petitioning For Fees Was Ill-Advised To Put In A Declaration By A Hawaiian Plumber About What The Plumber Charged!             As you will see, there is some underlying humor simmering in Roberts v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 16-16179 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2019) (published).             What

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar: Lodestar Analysis Governs A Song-Beverly Act Fee Recovery Despite A Contingency Fee Arrangement

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar

Contingency Fee Arrangement Has Probative Value, But It Is No Dispositive Indicator.             Litigants and their counsel in lemon law cases must keep in mind that the there is an attorney’s fees shifting provision, Civil Code section 1794(d), which allows fees to the prevailing product buyer “based on actual time reasonably expended, determined by the

Lodestar, Multiplier, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Taxpayer Properly Awarded Fee Of $116,647.47 For Prevailing In Political Reform Act Action

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

60% Total Positive Multiplier And Lodestar Awards Were No Abuse Of Discretion.             California’s Political Reform Act, codified at Government Code sections 81000 et seq., prohibits a public employee from influencing a governmental decision in which he/she has a financial interest.  There are liability provisions which allow a prosecutor or taxpayer to challenge the particular

Class Action, Costs, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 998: Trial Judge Properly Awarded Class $333,000 In Attorney’s Fees Out Of Requested $780,845.62

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 998

However, Lower Court Did Properly Award Voluntary Mediation Expenses And Expert Fees Incurred By The Class After Rejection Of A CCP § 998 Offer.             In Diaz v. Grill Concepts Service, Inc., Case No. B284146 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 19, 2018) (unpublished), former restaurant employees of a Daily Grill brought a class action for

Insurance, Lodestar, Reasonableness of Fees, Special Fee-Shifting Statutes, Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees: Third Circuit Upholds District Court’s Decision Denying Entire Almost $950K Fees And Costs Request To Successful Plaintiff

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Amount Requested Under Bad Faith Statute Was “Outrageously Excessive” Allowing District Court To Deny The Request Altogether As Thoroughly Explained In Its “Well-Reasoned One-Hundred-Page Opinion”             Ouch! Talk about learning a lesson the hard way! In a precedential opinion for a case decided by Justices Greenaway, Jr., Restrepo, and Bibas, and authored by Justice Greenaway, Jr.,

Scroll to Top